Unwise? maybe but a crime? no surely.
That Labor back bencher who took those pictures would we be ofended if he was a free lance Photographer?
Or if he worked for the paper that printed them?
What should he have done, do we question the millions of feet of film showing bashings murders or animal cruelty?
Do we want news or would we rather any one close get involved in the news, step in risk life or injury to stop it?
I do not post to defend the man, but beleave we are at a low point in politics if he must do any more than he has, apolidgise for being there, for taking that shot, for seeing a charity got a donation, for what ever crime? he did.
The question is this, is it ok to film or take pictures of new events?

To me it's the pharisees dragging the adulterous woman before Jesus and saying "The law says stone her"......though in this case it is the 'law' of the imagination of the people scrambling for high moral ground at the expense of this bloke.

All those who now feel just a bit better about themselves for showing revulsion over this politicians opportunism are like that I feel.

"let the critic without sin cast the first stone"

Belly, I don't think that Bidgood has done anything wrong. This is the era of citizen empowerment in the news production business. The new paradigm is the citizen journalist - the person who contributes to MSM and alternative media when and as they see news.

With the concentration of media in fewer and fewer hands, with smaller and smaller workforces because of smaller and smaller budgets, the citizen becomes an even more important source of diversity and accuracy in news reporting.

I put my initial thoughts together last night at http://ambit-gambit.nationalforum.com.au/archives/003426.html, and they are still developing. Bidgood should be a poster boy for the new paradigm. Afterall, what is the substantive difference between taking photos which you sell to the media, and writing op-eds that you do, like Tony Abbott and Mark Latham? You don't cease to be a citizen just because you are elected to parliament.

Nothing surprises me anymore. When a man can be arrested and charged for creating child pornography for photographing fully clothed children in a public place. In this case and the case involving the politician, bad mannered maybe, but shouldn't be a crime.

I wouldn't have taken a photo. I'd have supplied the match. D!(# heads like this bloke should be allowed to die anyway they like. One less DH is a bonus for Australia.

It's a disgrace that Bidgood had to appologise. It's a free enterprise market. Make a Quid where you can. No one condems the Paparatsi

The worst thing is this man represents an entire electorate of voters. What a low act. Making money out of the misfortune of others is hardly credit worthy or entrepreneurial.

Fairly or unfairly, the fact he is a politician probably makes it worse in my mind. What sort of people do we want representing us in Parliament.

What is more ironic is that this man quotes the Bible at the drop of a hat and states the financial crisis is an act of God. It appears he is one of those non-practising types. The decision to donate the money to charity as an afterthought once the news hit highlights that some part of him must know it was not the right thing to do.

Poor Rudd has his share of lame ducks, first the Iguana affair, then the Beef Stroganoff affair, and now paparazzi politicians. What awaits us next around the corner.